Delhi District Court
Sunita Rohilla vs Shakuntla Devi on 28 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS GARG, DISTRICT
JUDGE-05 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 921/16
CNR No. DLET01-000767-2012
Smt. Sunita Rohilla,
W/o Shri Kamal Rohilla,
R/o H. No. 2976, Gali No. 2
Dharam Pura, Gandhi Nagar,
Delni-110031.
...Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Shakuntala Devi
W/o Shri Mukesh,
2. Shri Mukesh
S/o Shri Ratan Giri,
Both R/C IX/5388, Gali No. 1, Nanak Basti, Purana
Seelampur, Delhi-110031.
Aiso at:
1/A-2, Geeta Colony,
Near Tanga Stand,
4th Floor, Delhi.
......Defendants
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi
&
CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 1/44
AND
COUNTER CLAIM NO. 339/2020
CNR No. DLET01-002588-2016
1. Smt. Shakuntala Devi
W/o Shri Mukesh
2. Shri Mukesh
S/o Shri Ratan Giri,
Both R/C IX/5388, Gali No. 1, Nanak Basti, Purana
Seelampur, Delhi-110031.
Aiso at:
1/A-2, Geeta Colony,
Near Tanga Stand,
4th Floor, Delhi.
..........Counter-Claimants
Vs.
Smt. Sunita Rohilla,
W/o Shri Kamal Rohilla,
R/o H. No. 2976, Gali No. 2
Dharam Pura, Gandhi Nagar,
Delni-110031.
............ Non Counter-Claimant
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi
&
CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 2/44
Date of Institution Main Suit : 08.02.2012
Date of Filing of Counterclaim : 14.03.2012
Date of Final Arguments: 24.04.2025
Date of Decision: 28.10.2025
Final Decision of the Main suit : Dismissed
Final Decision of Decreed
Counterclaim :
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND
COUNTER CLAIM FOR DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
Common Judgment and Scope of Adjudication:-
1. In this common judgment, I proceed to decide the plaintiff's suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction, along with the defendants' counter-claim for declaration and permanent injunction, as both arise from the same set of facts and documents.
Hereinafter, reference to the term "plaintiff" shall be deemed CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 3/44 to include the non-counter-claimant, and reference to the term "defendants" shall be deemed to include the counter- claimants, unless the context otherwise requires.
The Case of the Plaintiff / Non-counter-claimant, as Detailed in the Plaint and Written Statement (WS) to Counter Claim:-
2. The essential facts and pleadings relevant for adjudication, as emerging from the plaint and the written statement to the counter-claim, are as follows:--
The Defendant No. 1 is the wife of Defendant No. 2. Both defendants have been known to the Plaintiff and her family members for a long time, having cordial visiting terms for the last 8-10 years. The Plaintiff purchased the suit property from Defendant No. 1.
The Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the property bearing No. C-2, Gali No. 28, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093, measuring 25 sq. yds., forming part of Khasra No. 23/8, situated at Village Mandoli, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-110093 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The Plaintiff purchased the said property from Defendant No. 1 on 4th June 2010, through a set of documents comprising GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter, Affidavit, and Will, all dated 04.06.2010 and duly attested by the Notary Public.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 4/44 Defendant No. 1 also handed over the previous chain of title documents and delivered physical possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff. The entire sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) was paid by the Plaintiff at the time of execution of the documents.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff let out the property to a tenant. After the tenant vacated, the property remained locked and under the Plaintiff's control for about 8-9 months prior to the incident in question.
On 29.01.2012, the Plaintiff, while carrying the original title documents and their previous chain to make photocopies, lost the said documents due to the heavy crowd in the market. Despite all efforts, the documents could not be traced. Consequently, the Plaintiff lodged a report with Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi, where NCR No. 102/2012 dated 30.01.2012 was registered.
Apprehending possible misuse of the lost documents, the Plaintiff, accompanied by her husband Shri Kamal Rohilla, visited the suit property, only to discover that the locks were broken and the property was forcibly occupied by the Defendants. Defendant No. 1 and 2, along with Defendant No. 2's brothers Rohtash and Satish, were found inside the premises. When questioned, they abused and manhandled CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 5/44 the Plaintiff and her husband, claiming ownership of the property and threatening them with dire consequences if they approached the premises again.
The Plaintiff immediately approached P.S. Harsh Vihar to lodge a complaint, but the police refused to act, terming it a civil dispute. The Plaintiff later learned that the Defendants, having possibly found the lost documents, conspired to usurp the property unlawfully.
On the evening of 30.01.2012, Defendant No. 1, from mobile number 8750452070, called the Plaintiff on her mobile number 9911072898. Defendant No. 2 used abusive language and threatened the Plaintiff, asserting that since she had lost the original documents, she could no longer prove her ownership and should negotiate with them regarding the property. He further threatened that if she failed to settle, he would sell the suit property through local property dealers. The Plaintiff recorded this threatening conversation on her mobile phone and immediately lodged a complaint at P.S. Gandhi Nagar, vide D.D. No. 62-B dated 30.01.2012, but no action was taken.
On 31.01.2012, the Plaintiff again visited the suit property with her husband, requesting the Defendants to vacate the premises. However, they again abused and threatened them, CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 6/44 stating that they had already taken Rs. 1,00,000/- as bayana (earnest money) from a proposed buyer and that the Plaintiff could do nothing as she had lost her documents. The Plaintiff verified this fact from local property dealers, who confirmed that such a deal had indeed been struck.
Further, on 03.02.2012, when the Plaintiff and her husband once again requested the Defendants not to proceed with the illegal sale, the Defendants categorically claimed ownership over the suit property and declared their intention to sell it, daring the Plaintiff to take any action.
Having no alternative and seeing police inaction, the Plaintiff submitted complaints dated 04.02.2012 to the Commissioner of Police, DCP Seelampur, ACP Nand Nagri, and SHO Harsh Vihar. However, due to the Defendants' influence and collusion with police officials, no action was taken. Despite showing the NCR and photocopies of the ownership documents, the Defendants, through illegal means, managed to continue unlawful possession of the property since 30.01.2012.
On 05.02.2012, upon learning of the Plaintiff's complaints, the Defendants further threatened the Plaintiff and her family with death and pressurized her to withdraw the complaints. Thus, the Defendants have been in illegal possession and CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 7/44 occupation of the suit property since 30.01.2012, having trespassed therein without any lawful right, title, or interest.
The Plaintiff prays that this Court may be pleased to:
a) Declare the Plaintiff as the lawful and absolute owner of the suit property bearing No. C-2, Gali No. 28, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093, measuring 25 sq. yds., out of Khasra No. 23/8, Village Mandoli, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-110093.
b) Direct the Defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said property to the Plaintiff.
c) Restrain the Defendants, their agents or representatives from selling, transferring, parting with possession, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
d) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Case of the Defendants / Counter Claimants as per Written Statement / Counterclaim:-
3. The essential facts and averments necessary for adjudication, as outlined in the written statement/counter-
claim, are as follows:--
The Defendants are the lawful owners and in continuous possession of the suit property measuring 25 sq. yds., out of Khasra No. 23/8, bearing No. C-2, Gali No. 28, Harsh Vihar, CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 8/44 Village Mandoli, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi, situated opposite Peer Baba Mazar. Their ownership is based on a continuous chain of documents: a GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt (Rs. 10,000/-), and Registered Will, all dated 08.11.1996, executed by Parveen Garg in favour of Om Prakash Kanojia; another set of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt (Rs. 90,000/-), and Will, all dated 11.12.2001, executed by Om Prakash Kanojia in favour of Raj Kumar Dixit; and lastly, GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt (Rs. 3,00,000/-), and Will, all dated 10.10.2002, executed by Raj Kumar Dixit in favour of Smt. Shakuntla Devi (Defendant No. 1). On the strength of these documents, Defendant No. 1 executed a Registered GPA, Gift Deed, Affidavit, Possession Letter, and Will dated 07.02.2012 in favour of Defendant No. 2. Accordingly, the Defendants have been the absolute owners and possessors of the suit property since 10.10.2002. The Plaintiff's entire story regarding alleged execution of title documents dated 04.06.2010 by Defendant No. 1 in her favour, and alleged handing over of the original documents dated 10.10.2002, is false, fabricated, and concocted. Had any such transaction genuinely occurred, the Plaintiff would have obtained the complete chain of original title documents dated 08.11.1996, 11.12.2001, and 10.10.2002. The allegations of loss of documents on 29.01.2012, and the CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 9/44 complaints dated 30.01.2012 and 04.02.2012, are merely afterthoughts intended to mislead this Hon'ble Court. The Plaintiff's further claim of having let out the property to a tenant and being dispossessed on 30.01.2012 is entirely baseless, as even the name of the alleged tenant has not been disclosed. The Defendants have been in peaceful possession of the property since 2002, and the Plaintiff has never occupied it in any capacity. The documents dated 04.06.2010, allegedly executed in favour of the Plaintiff, are forged and fabricated, liable to be declared null and void.
The Defendants are the rightful owners on the basis of the genuine title chain mentioned above.
In truth, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 were acquainted for 8-10 years as colleagues at Sahara India Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. In January 2010, the Plaintiff offered to help Defendant No. 1 obtain a personal loan against the suit property, claiming to have contacts with bank officials. Trusting her representation, the Defendants handed over the original title documents dated 08.11.1996, 11.12.2001, and 10.10.2002, along with the photographs of Defendant No. 1, to the Plaintiff for the said purpose. In March 2010, the Plaintiff returned the originals, stating that the loan could not be sanctioned since the property was located in an unauthorized colony without a registered sale deed.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 10/44 However, after March 2010, the Plaintiff became dishonest and misused the photocopies of the title documents and photographs of Defendant No. 1. In collusion with Notary Shri Dinesh Chandra, Advocate, the Plaintiff allegedly prepared forged documents dated 04.06.2010, purporting to transfer the property in her name. It is evident that the signatures on these forged documents are in English, whereas Defendant No. 1 always signs in Hindi. Both the genuine documents dated 10.10.2002 and the forged ones dated 04.06.2010 bear attestation by the same Notary, further indicating manipulation. The alleged certificate dated 07.02.2012 issued by the said Notary is also fabricated, as it inconsistently mentions the execution date as 04.07.2010 instead of 04.06.2010. Defendant No. 1 never appeared before the Notary on 04.06.2010, nor did she sign any register in his presence. It is also relevant that the Plaintiff, being employed with Sahara India Ltd., was well acquainted with the said Notary and frequently approached him for official documentation, which facilitated the preparation of these forged papers.
The present suit is barred under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, as the Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property since 10.10.2002, nor was she dispossessed by the Defendants as alleged. The Plaintiff's claims are false, CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 11/44 fabricated, and filed with malafide intent to grab the property unlawfully.
The averments made in the prayer clause of the Plaintiff are denied. The Plaintiff cannot be declared the owner of the suit property on the basis of the Photostat copies of documents dated 04.06.2010, which are forged and fabricated. The originals, including the document dated 10.10.2002, were handed over to the Plaintiff in January 2010 for securing a personal loan and returned in March 2010, but the Plaintiff retained photocopies and later prepared the forged documents in her name. Accordingly, the documents dated 04.06.2010 are liable to be declared null and void, and the Defendants are entitled to be declared the lawful owners and in possession of the suit property bearing No. C-2, Gali No. 28, Harsh Vihar, Delhi, measuring 25 sq. yds. out of Khasra No. 23/8, on the basis of the original documents dated 08.11.1996, 11.12.2001, 10.10.2002, and 07.02.2012, and the registered GPA, Gift deed, affidavit, possession letter, and will dated 07.02.2012. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any decree for possession, nor to any further reliefs, and is liable to be restrained from creating third-party interest or attempting to dispossess the Defendants based on the forged documents. The Plaintiff's suit being false, frivolous, vexatious, and not maintainable, it is liable to be dismissed CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 12/44 with costs, and it is prayed that the Defendants' counterclaim may be decreed, the forged documents dated 04.06.2010 may be declared cancelled and nullified, a decree for permanent injunction may be granted restraining the Plaintiff and her associates from interfering with the Defendants' possession, and the costs of the counterclaim may be awarded in favor of the Defendants.
Replication:-
4. The plaintiff has filed a replication to the written statement, denying the averments made by the defendants/counter-claimants and reiterating and reaffirming the allegations and claims set forth in the plaint.
Similarly, a replication has been filed on behalf of the counter-claimants/defendants to the written statement filed in response to the counter-claim, denying the averments made by the plaintiff/non-counter-claimant and reiterating and reaffirming the allegations and claims contained in the counter-claim.
Issues:-
5. Upon completion of the pleadings, separate issues were framed on 22.02.2016 for the trial of the main suit as well as for the trial of the counter-claim.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 13/44 Issues Framed in the Main Suit:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration, as prayed for, in respect of property No.C-2. Gali No.28, Harsh Vihar, Delhi, measuring 25 sq. yards? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession of suit property, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether defendants are owner and in possession of the suit property, as claimed? OPD
5. Whether suit is barred by section 6 of Specific Relieft Act? OPD
6. Whether suit is without any cause of action? OPD
7. Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed by the parties at that time.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 14/44 Issues Framed in the Counterclaim:
1. Whether the counter claimant is entitled for the relief of declaration of ownership and in possession of suit property, as prayed for? OPC
2. Whether the alleged documents dated 04.06.2010 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property are to be declared as null and void, being forged and fabricated? OPC
3. Whether the counter claimant is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPC
4. Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed by the parties at that time.
Plaintiff / Non Counter Claimant's Evidence:-
6. The plaintiff and non-counter-claimant, Sunita Rohilla, appeared as PW-1 and submitted her evidential affidavit, exhibited as Exhibit PW1/A, during her examination-in-chief. In her affidavit, she reiterated the contents of the plaint and the written statement to the CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 15/44 counterclaim. In support of her testimony, she relied on the following documents:
(1) Copy of affidavit dated 30/01/2012 as Mark A, (2) Copy of GPA dated 04/06/2010 as Mark B. (3) Copy of Agreement to sell dated 04/06/2010 as Mark C, (4) Copy of receipt of Rs. 5 lacs dated 04/06/2010 as Mark D. (5) Copy of possession letter dated 04/06/2010 as Mark E. (6) Copy of first and last will of Smt. Shakuntala Devi in favour of Smt. Sunita Rohialla as Mark F. (7) Copy of GPA dated 10/10/2002 as Mark G. (8) Copy of Agreement to sell dated 10/10/2002 as Mark H. (9) Copy of receipt of Rs 3 lac dated 10/10/2002 as Mark I. (10) Copy of Will dated 10/10/2002 as Mark J. (11) Copy of GPA dated 11/12/2001 as Mark K. (12) Copy of Agreement to sell dated 11/12/2001 as Mark L. (13) Copy of receipt of Rs. 90,000/- dated 11/12/2001 as Mark M. (14) Copy of Will dated 11/12/2001 as Mark N, CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 16/44 (15) Copy of GPA dated 08/11/1996 as Mark O. (16) Copy of Agreement dated 08/11/1996 as Mark P. (17) Copy of affidavit of Parveen Garg as Mark Q. (18) Copy of Will deed dated 08/11/1996 as Mark R. (19) Copy of affidavit of Sh. Parveen Garg as Mark S. (20) Copy of receipt dated 08/11/1996 as Mark T. (21) Copy of agreement dated 08/11/1996 executed by Parveen Garg as Mark U. (22) Copy of police complaint dated 04/02/2012 as Mark V. (23) Four Postal receipts in respect of sending the police complaint as Ex PW-1/1.
(24) Site plan as Ex PW-1/2.
(25) Copy of my passbook as Mark X. (26) Copy of NCR no. 102/12 dated 30/01/2012, PS Harsh Vihar as Ex PW-1/3.
She was extensively cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendants / counter claimants.
Sh. Charanjeet Rai @ Ajeet appeared as PW-2 and deposed CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 17/44 that on 04.06.2010 plaintiff along with defendant came to him at Seelampur Court and requested to him to prepare the sale documents of the suit property. He made the sale document at the request of plaintiff and defendant. He further deposed that he had prepared the sale documents i.e. Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter, Receipt of Rs. 5 lakhs, Affidavit of Shakuntla Devi, First and last Will of Shakuntla Devi which were already marked as Mark B to Mark F. He further deposed that all the abovesaid documents were signed before him by both the parties which bears his signature at point A1 to A4. He further deposed that thereafter he took both the parties to the notary for attestation of documents. Both the parties had signed in the register of the notary in his presence. The stamp paper were purchased by him on the consent of the both parties.
He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendants / counter claimants.
Sh. Kamal Rohila appeared as PW-3 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, exhibited as Ex. PW3/A, during his examination-in-chief, wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint.
He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 18/44 defendants / counter claimants.
Sh. Pawan Kumar appeared as PW-4 and deposed that he is the son of Late Sh. Dinesh Chandra, who expired on 30.04.2021. He stated that he had appeared to identify the signatures of his father and that he had examined the documents Mark A, B, C, D, and E, as well as the certificate dated 07.02.2012 issued by Late Sh. Dinesh Chandra. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendants / counter claimants.
Defendants / Counter Claimants Evidence:-
7. Smt. Shakuntla, one of the defendants/counter-
claimants, was examined as DW-1. During her examination- in-chief, she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, exhibited as Ex. DW1/A, wherein she reiterated the contents of the written statement and the counter-claim. In support of her testimony, she relied upon the following documents:
1) Original GPA dated 10.10.2002 as Ex. DW1/1.
2) Original Agreement to Sell dated 10.10.2002 as Ex. DW1/2.
3) Original receipt dated 10.10.2002 as Ex.
DW1/3.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 19/44
4) Original WILL dated 10.10.2002 as Ex. DW1/4.
5) Original GPA dated 11.12.2001 as Ex. DW1/5.
6) Original Agreement to Sell dated 11.12.2001 as Ex. DW1/6.
7) Original receipt dated 11.12.2001 as Ex. DW1/7.
8) Original WILL dated 11.12.2001 as Ex. DW1/8.
9) Original GPA dated 08.11.1996 executed by Sh. Parveen Garg in favour of Om Prakash Kanojia as Ex. DW1/9.
10) Original Agreement dated 08.11.1996 executed by Sh. Parveen Garg in favour of Om Prakash Kanojia as Ex. DW1/10.
11) Original WILL dated 08.11.1996 executed by Sh. Parveen Garg in favour of Om Prakash Kanojia as Ex. DW1/11.
12) Original receipt dated 08.11.1996 as Ex. DW1/12.
13) Original GPA dated 07.02.2012 executed by Shakuntla Devi in favour of Sh. Mukesh Giri as Ex. DW1/13.
14) Original Gift Deed dated 07.02.2012 executed CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 20/44 by Shakuntla Devi in favour of Sh. Mukesh Giri as Ex. DW1/14.
15) Original Affidavit of Shakuntla Devi in support of Gift Deed as Ex. DW1/15.
16) Original Possession letter dated 07.02.2012 as Ex. DW1/16.
17) Original WILL dated 07.02.2012 as Ex. DW1/17.
18) Office Copy of legal notice dated 05.05.2014 as Ex. DW1/18.
19) Office copy of reply of legal notice dated 05.06.2014 as Ex. DW1/19.
20) Original reply to the notice of demand dated 05.05.2014 as Ex. DW1/20.
21) Office copy of legal notice dated 08.08.2014 as Ex. DW1/21.
22) Original Legal notice U/s 140 of the Delhi Police Act dated 08.08.2014 as Ex. DW1/22.
23) Reply by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, East Distrtict, Delhi of legal notice U/s 140 of the Delhi Police Act dated 08.08.2014 as Ex. DW1/23.
24) Reply dated 27.11.2014 to the notice of the demand dated 8.8.2014, on behalf of Sh. Mukesh CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 21/44 Giri U/s 140 of the DP Act as Ex. DW1/24.
25) Original postal receipts for sending notices and reply to different authorities as Ex. DW1/28 (colly).
26) Original General Power of Attorney dated 21.03.2012 executed by Sh. Pawan Vats in favour of Sh. Satender Dutt as Ex. DW1/29 (colly).
27) Original blank stamp papers attested by Sh. Dinesh Chandra, Advocate Notary as Ex. DW1/30 (colly).
She was extensively cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff / non-counter-claimant.
Sh. Mukesh Giri, one of the defendants/counter- claimants, was examined as DW-2. During his examination- in-chief, he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, exhibited as Ex. DW2/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the written statement and the counter-claim. In support of his testimony, he relied upon all the documents already relied upon by DW-1, Smt. Shakuntala.
Arguments:-
8. Arguments on behalf Plaintiff/Non-Counter-
Claimant:
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued along the lines of CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 22/44 the plaint, reading it in detail to support the case. At the same time, he referred to relevant portions of the Defendants' Written Statement to reinforce the Plaintiff's position. He submitted that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 clearly establishes the case of the Plaintiff. Counsel further relied on the lost report of the documents to demonstrate that the original property documents were lost in the market. He emphasized that the Plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit property, noting that even the Defendants' witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that the property was tenanted by the Plaintiff prior to the alleged dispossession. Additionally, he highlighted that the electricity bills of the suit property had been paid by the Plaintiff as further proof of possession.
While rebutting the arguments advanced by the Defendants' counsel, he submitted that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the present case. On the basis of the evidence and submissions, learned counsel prayed that the suit be decreed in favor of the Plaintiff and that the Defendants' counterclaim be dismissed.
Arguments on behalf of Defendants/Counter-Claimants:
Ld. counsel for the defendants/counter-claimants argued in line with the written statement, reading it extensively and referring to specific portions of the plaintiff's plaint in an CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 23/44 attempt to contradict the plaintiff's case. He also drew the attention of the Court to the evidence of the defendants' witnesses.
It was submitted that PW1, Smt. Sunita Rohilla, PW2, Charanjeet Rai, PW3, Kamal Rohilla (husband of the plaintiff), and PW4, Shri Pawan Kumar (son of Shri Dinesh Chandra, Advocate/Notary), gave contradictory statements during their examination-in-chief and cross-examination regarding the preparation and attestation of documents Mark-B to Mark-F, allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff. PW1 admitted during cross- examination that the original documents were lost, that certain notices and criminal complaints were filed but later acquitted, and that documents in favor of defendant No. 2 existed but no suit was filed for cancellation. PW1 also admitted discrepancies regarding stamp papers, purchase details, and tenant information.
PW2 admitted that although he drafted the documents and purchased stamp papers, he did not hold a license as a deed writer or approved typist, and that the notarial register was not signed by him. PW4 also admitted inability to identify the signatures or thumb impressions of the Notary on the documents and on the notarial register. PW3 and PW1 gave inconsistent statements regarding the place and CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 24/44 circumstances under which the original documents Mark-G to Mark-U were prepared and subsequently lost.
It was argued that the plaintiff failed to engage a handwriting expert to verify signatures and thumb impressions on documents Mark-B to Mark-F and the notarial register, which was necessary given the denial by defendant No. 1. Further, certain documents, including GPA, agreement to sell, and possession letters (Ext DW1/29, DW1/30), were attested by the Notary but did not bear signatures of the parties, suggesting possible forgery in collusion with PW2 and the Notary.
The defendants' counsel also highlighted that documents such as notices, replies, rejoinders, and court orders were not questioned by the plaintiff during cross-examination, demonstrating gaps in the plaintiff's case. It was contended that documents Mark-B to Mark-F were forged, and prior FIRs filed by the plaintiff against defendant No. 2 were false, as evidenced by acquittals by competent courts.
Reliance was placed on judicial precedents, including Ghayshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, Atma Ram v. Charanjit Singh, and Jasmer Singh & Ors. v. Kanwaljit Singh & Another, to argue that possession under unregistered GPA, agreement to sell, will, or possession CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 25/44 letters does not entitle the plaintiff to claim possession or permanent injunction, and only a suit for specific performance is maintainable. Since the plaintiff did not file a suit for specific performance, the suit for declaration, possession, and injunction is liable to be dismissed, and the defendants' counterclaim should succeed.
It was further argued, citing U Sree v. U Simvas and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishan & Ors., that under Sections 63, 65, and 66 of the Evidence Act, photostat copies of documents are not admissible as secondary evidence; therefore, documents Mark-B to Mark-F relied upon by the plaintiff cannot be admitted. Overall, he relied upon the following judicial precedents to fortify his arguments:
i) Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, Civil Appeal Nos. 7527-
7528 of 2012, Supreme Court of India;
ii) Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, dated 23.09.2022, Supreme Court of India;
iii) Atma Ram v. Charanjit Singh, dated 10.02.2020, Supreme Court of India;
iv) Jasmer Singh & Ors. v. Kanwaljit Singh & Anr., dated 03.09.1990, AIR 1991 PH 194, Punjab & Haryana High CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 26/44 Court;
v) U. Sree v. U. Srinivas, Supreme Court of India;
vi) Baba Tek Singh v. Union of India & Ors., Supreme Court of India;
vii) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Krishna & Ors., MAC App. 229 of 2004, dated 06.08.2012, Delhi High Court;
viii) Bharatiya Adimjati Sevak Sangh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 4814/2003 & CMs 8414/2003, dated 08.08.2012, Delhi High Court.
He prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit and for the counterclaim to be decreed in favor of the defendants.
Evaluation of Submissions and Record:-
9. I have carefully listened to the arguments presented by the learned counsels from both sides, thoroughly reviewed the record, and considered the relevant provisions of the law and precedents.
Issue Wise Findings:-
10. Issue No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 (of the Main Suit) and Issue No. 2 of the Counter-Claim:
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 27/44 All these issues in the main suit and the counter-claim are taken up together as they are interconnected and arise out of the same set of facts and documents. To avoid repetition and ensure clarity, they are discussed under appropriate heads as follows:
Relief of Ownership, Possession and Mandatory Injunction on the basis of documents - GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt, Possession Letter, and Affidavit, all dated 04.06.2010:
The plaintiff asserts that she purchased the suit property from defendant no. 1 by virtue of documents, namely, a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt, Possession Letter, and Affidavit, all dated
04.06.2010.
The defendants, however, have denied the execution of the said documents. Even if the said documents are presumed to be genuine, the plaintiff cannot claim ownership rights on their basis, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prevailing law.
As regards the Will, since defendant no. 1 is still alive, no question arises of the plaintiff deriving any ownership or title over the property on the basis of the Will purportedly executed by defendant no. 1 in her favour.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 28/44 As regards the remaining documents (i.e., GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc.), it is a settled proposition of law that such documents do not confer ownership rights in immovable property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Shakeel Ahmad vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (Civil Appeal No. 1598 of 2023, decided on 01.11.2023), observed as follows:
"10 Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries (supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 29/44 claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882."
In view of the aforesaid legal position, the plaintiff cannot be said to have acquired ownership over the suit property. Consequently, no case is made out for any of the reliefs sought--namely, declaration, possession, and permanent injunction--on the basis of the said documents.
The plaintiff has also failed to establish any other independent basis for seeking the reliefs of declaration, possession, and mandatory injunction. Even if the plaintiff's case is assumed to be true in its entirety, no occasion arises for granting any of the reliefs claimed.
Genuineness of Documents Dated 04.06.2010 (GPA,Agreement to Sell, etc) The plaintiff has pleaded that the original documents executed in her favour, along with the original previous chain of documents, were lost while she was on her way to get them xeroxed. According to the plaintiff, the original previous chain of documents had been handed over to her by the defendants. However, the plaintiff's version of the CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 30/44 alleged loss of documents appears highly improbable and unbelievable. It has not been explained how and when these documents allegedly came back into the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff's story in this regard is vague and suspicious.
In this context, paragraph no. 8 of the plaint is relevant and reproduced as follows:
"8. That it seems that the Defendant No. 1 and 2have found the original documents and have hatched a conspiracy against the Plaintiff in order to usurp the suit property illegally and unlawfully. However, the original documents of the suit property have been lost on 29.01.2012 and the Plaintiff had lodged a complaint thereof on 30.01.2012."
The use of the word "seems" renders the plaintiff's story highly doubtful. It has not been clarified how it seems to the plaintiff that the defendants found the original documents, nor has she explained what specific conspiracy was allegedly hatched or how the defendants could have anticipated that she would lose the documents and they would later "find" them. No details have been provided as to when, where, or under what circumstances the documents were lost--only a CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 31/44 bare statement that they were lost on 29.01.2012. It also remains unexplained why the plaintiff chose that particular day to get them xeroxed.
The NCR (Ex. PW-1/3) relied upon by the plaintiff has not been proved in accordance with law. The relevant contents of the NCR are as follows:
"4. NCR Contents:
The complainant reported that I have lost my Property Document of Gali NO. 28, near Neel Kath Mandir, Harsh Vihar, Delhi on the way of Harsh Vihar. So one copy of NCR given to the complainant.
5. Particulars of properties involved (Attach separate sheet, if necessary):
Sr: Property Type: Property Description:
1 MISC DOCUMENTS PROPERTY DOCUMENTS OF GALI NO. 28, NEAR NEEL KATH MANDIR, HARSH VIHAR, DELHI 93
6. Name and Full address of witnesses:
1: SUNITA ROHILLA (W/O) KAMAL ROHILLA (R/o) H.NO. 2976, GALI NO. 2, GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI 31 2: HC MUKESH"
The term "property document" used in the NCR is general and non-specific. It has not been explained why the details of the documents were not mentioned, particularly when the plaintiff was in possession of xerox copies thereof.
It is inconceivable that the defendants could have come into possession of the original previous chain of documents merely by "finding them coincidentally."
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 32/44 Interestingly, while the plaint and evidentiary affidavit of the plaintiff mention the loss of the documents, the cross- examination of PW-3 Sh. Kamal Rohilla presents a different version. The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced below:
"........... The previous chain of documents regarding the suit property were handed over to us and same were lost. (Vol. The said documents were stolen). Those chain of documents were lost on 29.01.2012. I have filed a complaint regarding stolen chain documents. I and my wife have filed the complaint at PS Gandhi Nagar regarding stolen documents 30.01.2012......"
Here, the version shifts from loss to theft of documents, which is a material contradiction. This inconsistency renders the plaintiff's story about the execution of the documents in her favour and the alleged loss of the previous chain even more unreliable.
The plaintiff further claims that the possession of the suit property was with a tenant; however, no evidence has been led to substantiate this. The pleadings contain only bald assertions--no rent agreement has been filed, nor has the name of the tenant been disclosed. The plaintiff has argued CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 33/44 that the tenancy was admitted by the defendants during the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-3. This argument has no merit. The cross-examination must be read in its entirety. The relevant portion of PW-1's testimony (cross- examination dated 16.07.2018) is reproduced below:
"...... It is correct that the whole suit property was given on rent. It is also correct that since I purchased the suit property, I never resided there. (Vol. I used to visit at the suit property). It is correct that tenant used to put his lock on the suit property. It is correct that there is a criminal complaint bearing FIR no. 228/2014, PS Anand Vihar pending before the court of Ms Babita Puniya, Ld MM, Karkardooma Courts against the defendant no. 2 herein. It is correct that I have given my evidence in that criminal case............"
On that date (on 16.07.2018), the cross-examination was deferred by the learned counsel for the defendants to confront the plaintiff with FIR No. 228/2014. Upon resumption (on 15.10.2018), the following portion was recorded:
".......... At this stage, witness is shown the certified copy of statement of complainant Smt. CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 34/44 Sunita Rohilla recorded on 26/06/2018, in criminal case titled as State Vs Mukesh Giri, bearing FIR 228/14, PS Anand Vihar, Delhi now Ex PW-1/D-1 and is asked about the statement made by witness. Witness states that after the purchase of suit property, she has put her lock on the suit property. It is correct that earlier, I have said in my statement that after getting the possession of suit property. I gave the property on rent. It is correct that firstly I gave the suit property on rent and after vacating the property from the tenant, I put the lock on it. It is wrong to suggest that defendant no. 1 never executed any document of title in my favour on 04/06/2010. It is also wrong to suggest that defendant no. 1 had never handed over the previous chain of suit property to me. It is further wrong to suggest that for above said reason, I have not filed the previous chain of documents of the suit property in the court. It is also wrong to suggest that I was never in possession of the suit property nor the suit property was in the possession of any tenant. It is also wrong to suggest that the suit property is always in the possession of the defendant no. 1. I do not CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 35/44 remember the name of the advocate who had prepared the document dated 04/06/2010. At the time of preparation of the document, defendant no. 1 and 2 along with typist and one advocate Sh. Charanjeet Singh were present at the time of execution of the document dated 04/06/2010. Exactly I do not remember the name of the notary advocate who attested the document dated 04/06/2010, however, the advocate name was Sh. Chandra. (Vol. The Charanjeet Singh was the typist who prepared the document 04/06/2010). It is wrong to suggest that in the month of January/February 2010, I have collected the photocopies of documents of suit property on the pretext that I shall arrange the bank loan for the defendant through some bank and later on, on 04/06/2010, I in collusion Sh. Dinesh Chandra, notary advocate prepared forged documents dated 04/06/2010 in my name. It is wrong to suggest that I have lodged the false complaint to the police regarding the lost and misplaced of original chain of document of the suit property by me. At this stage, witness is shown photocopy of certificate issued by Advocate and notary Sh.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 36/44 Dinesh Chandra dated 07/02/2012 now Mark PW-1/D-2 and is asked whether the notary Sh. Dinesh Chandra had issued the said certificate stating therein that the GPA sale documents were executed on 04/07/2010. The notary was aged about 80 years so he has due to old age inadvertently mentioned the wrong date as 04/07/2010 in the document Mark PW-1/D-2. It is wrong to suggest that GPA Sale documents were never executed or that the said documents are forged and fabricated..........."
A holistic reading of the above makes it clear that there is no admission on the part of the defendants. The suggestion "It is correct that the whole suit property was given on rent"
was put to highlight contradictions between the witness's statements in this court and those made in the FIR-based criminal case. The defence has appropriately denied the plaintiff's alleged possession at all material times.
The plaintiff further argued that there was an admission regarding possession in the cross-examination of PW-3. This contention too is baseless. The relevant portion of PW-3's cross-examination reads as follows:
".......... It is correct that I have given the suit CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 37/44 property on rent for 6 to 7 months I do not remember the name of tenants as it was 10-12 years old episode. On that time rent of the said suit property was Rs. 1000/-.........."
This isolated statement is insufficient to establish the plaintiff's possession over the suit property. A comprehensive reading of the cross-examination of PW-3, taken together with the defendants' case, makes it evident that the plaintiff has failed to establish possession over the suit property at any point of time.
The plaintiff also claimed to have paid an electricity bill for the suit property. The defendants, however, have explained that the plaintiff owed them some money and the said bill was paid from that amount. It has not been shown that the electricity connection or other utilities were ever transferred in her name. Merely paying a bill does not establish ownership or possession.
It thus stands proved that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property, which further undermines her claim regarding the alleged execution of the GPA and related documents dated 04.06.2010.
The defendants have filed a complaint against the notary public, Sh. Dinesh Chandra. The testimony of PW-2 is CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 38/44 unreliable, as he himself admitted that he has no license as a deed writer or typist, despite allegedly preparing documents since 1998. He also failed to disclose from which stamp vendor the stamp papers were purchased. Notably, the photocopies of the alleged GPA and related documents dated 04.06.2010 do not bear any xerox print on the reverse side of the stamp papers.
The original previous chain of documents is in possession of defendant no. 1, who produced the same before the Court. If the documents dated 04.06.2010 were indeed executed in favour of the plaintiff, she would have possessed the original chain of title documents. However, it stands proved that she never had them. No original document dated 04.06.2010 has been produced, and the alleged story of loss remains unsubstantiated. The execution of any such document on 04.06.2010 has been expressly denied.
In light of the foregoing discussion and on the touchstone of the balance of probabilities, this Court holds that the documents dated 04.06.2010 (GPA, etc.) are forged and fabricated, and hereby declares them null and void.
All these issues are, therefore, decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 39/44 Issue No. 5 of the Main Suit:
From the foregoing discussion on issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the main suit and issue No. 2 of the counter-claim, it stands clearly established that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property at any point of time. As discussed earlier, the possession of the suit property has throughout remained with the defendants.
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 applies only where a person in lawful possession of immovable property is unlawfully dispossessed. In the present case, since the plaintiff has failed to establish her possession over the suit property, no question arises of her dispossession by the defendants. Consequently, the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Issue No. 4 of the Main Suit and Issue No. 1 of the Counter-Claim:
As already noted, ownership in immovable property cannot be acquired merely by execution of documents such as a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt, or Affidavit. These documents, even if executed, do not confer ownership rights unless followed by a duly registered sale deed in accordance with law.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 40/44 According to the version of both parties, Defendant No. 1 claims to have become the owner of the suit property by virtue of a General Power of Attorney dated 10.10.2002 (unregistered), Agreement to Sell, Receipt, and Will. However, no attesting witness has been examined to prove the execution of the said Will, nor is it established that the executant of the Will has expired. Furthermore, it has not been proved that the executant of the GPA, Will, and other related documents was himself the lawful owner of the suit property. The record indicates that he too claimed ownership through a similar set of documents -- namely, an unregistered GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, and Will.
No registered sale deed of the suit property has been brought on record by any of the parties. The entire previous chain of documents runs on the same pattern, consisting merely of a succession of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, and Will in favour of one person after another, none of which are registered.
It is observed that none of these documents are registered except for a GPA executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2, which was executed either on the day of, or a day before, the filing of the present suit. Mere registration of that GPA, however, does not by itself confer ownership upon either of the defendants.
CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 41/44 Interestingly, on the basis of the said GPA, a Gift Deed dated 07.02.2012 was also executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2. However, the said Gift Deed is unregistered and, therefore, has no legal effect in transferring ownership or title.
The defendants, therefore, cannot be declared the owners of the suit property. As already discussed while dealing with Issues No. 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the main suit and Issue No. 2 of the counterclaim, the possession of the defendants stands established, whereas the plaintiff has failed to prove her possession over the suit property at any point of time. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 of the main suit and Issue No. 1 of the counterclaim are decided in these terms.
Issue No. 3 of the Counter Claim:
It is true that the defendants are not owners of the suit property in the strict legal sense, as ownership has not been established through a valid registered conveyance deed. However, as discussed in detail above, they have proved their possession over the suit property. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claims her alleged rights through Defendant No. 1 herself.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Court holds that Defendant No. 1 possesses a superior right over the suit CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 42/44 property as compared to the plaintiff. Consequently, in recognition of such better right, the relief of injunction is granted in favour of Defendant No. 1, restraining the plaintiff from (i) creating any third-party interest in the suit property, and (ii) dispossessing Defendant No. 1 from the suit property in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of Defendant No. 1 and against the plaintiff.
Relief:-
11. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings on all the issues, the suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs, and the counter-claim filed by the defendants is decreed in the following terms:
i) The documents, namely the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter, Affidavit of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, and Will --
all dated 04.06.2010 -- are hereby declared null and void.
ii) A decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the defendants/counter claimants, thereby restraining the plaintiff/non counter claimant from creating any third-party interest in the suit property or CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 43/44 from dispossessing the defendants/counter claimants therefrom.
iii) The counter-claimants/defendants shall also be entitled to the costs of the counter-claim.
12. Separate decree sheets shall be prepared for both -- the main suit and the counter-claim.
13. A copy of this judgment shall be retained in the counter- claim file for reference and record.
14. After due compliance, the file be consigned to the Record Room.
Pronounced in the open court on 28.10.2025 (Vikas Garg) District Judge-05 /EAST), KKD, Delhi/28.10.2025 CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 44/44